South Park vs. Radical Islam

South Park’s 200th episode featured Muhammad. He was not, of course, actually drawn as Muhammad but rather presented wearing a mascot’s bear costume. This, not surprisingly, has led revolutionmuslim.com to post a warning to South Park creators: they will end up like van Gogh. No, not the painter who allegedly sliced off his own ear. Rather, this is Theo van Gogh who was murdered after making a film about violence against women in certain Islamic cultures.

One reason for this response is that it is supposed to be forbidden to create images of Muhammad. The idea that certain images should not be displayed is not unique to Islam. There have been times when the displaying of certain religious images was forbidden in Christianity (and not just graven images, etc.). While the idea that such images should not be displayed seems like mere irrational superstition, it can be argued that people’s religious beliefs should be respected. So, for example, if Islam forbids the portrayal of Muhammad, then this should be honored. Then again, the idea that the free expression of ideas and views can be held hostage by theological views might strike some as rather medieval.

Another reason for this response is that the episode can be seen as mocking Islam-or at least making a veiled (sorry) attack on the followers who tend to be rather obsessed about Muhammad being portrayed. While people obviously do not like having their beliefs mocked, how people respond to such mocking shows a great deal about the people in question. South Park routinely makes fun of Christianity (Jesus is a recurring character on the show and his epic battle with Santa is a thing of legends), yet Christians generally do not make death threats over such mockery. In contrast, Islam’s defenders might be seen as operating like the Spanish Inquisition-quick to use violence to “defend” the faith. To be fair, people claiming to be Christians do still use violence and justify it on the basis of their faith. Perhaps the best known examples are the murders of doctors who perform abortions.

It might be the case, as some have argued, that a significant number of Muslims are still operating in the mindset of the dark ages (that is, how religion often operated in Europe prior to the Enlightenment…and beyond). After all, a mature and rational human being can, as the saying goes, take a joke. Also, an ethical person proportions her response to the severity of the offense. Having Muhammad in a bear suit might seem a bit silly, but it hardly seems something worth killing over. As such, the folks at Revolutionmuslim.com might be regarded as rather immature and unethical. Some might go so far as to make the same claim about many followers of Islam or perhaps even the entire faith.

Islam might, as some see it, be lagging behind because it is a younger religion and also because it has been far less influenced by Modern and contemporary ideas and influences (like democracy, women’s rights, scientific advances, and liberal political theory). Perhaps, as some have argued, Islam will eventually emerge from the dark ages after a long and prolonged struggle, much like Christianity.

Then again, as some argue, perhaps Islam is not lagging behind. After all, this presumes that religions progress towards some sort of “better” state. It might well be the case that Islam is up to date with the 21st century, just not the Western and liberal 21st century.

I think it also might be argued that Islam, having explicitly rejected Christ and the way of Christianity, has nowhere to go but down (legally and ethically speaking).

Much like the atheist, who explicitly rejects God and Christ, is thrown back onto humanity alone which, in the end, is the way of Man or the will to power (or might makes right).

I mean, stoning adulterers and chopping off the hands of thieves, after Christ has come? Since they reject Christ’s teachings they have nowhere else to go except backward, or downward.

It’s been said that the Greeks gave us the last purely human philosophy because, after Christ, all philosophers then had to deal with his teachings.

The legal representation of this is evident in the U. S. today in the rise of positive law over against natural law. Natural law is a transcendent standard to which all men are held, positive law is man-made standard to which those only laking the power to shape its contours are held.

The Declaration of Independence says that our rights are inalienable, because they are granted us by our Creator (natural law), yet today these rights have become alienable, because they are seen as having been granted to us by the government (positive law).

If our rights are God-given, they are inalienable, if our rights are Man-given they are alienable (i.e., the government gives and the government takes away).

I’m downright sick of the idea that all cultures have equal value. No–they don’t.

We’ve patted ourselves on the back and allowed Islam to be what it is: One giant death cult. Oh yes, we’re sooooo tolerant.

Even the fricken US Army does it. Major Hasan for example. And the scary thing is, I think the “extremists” are the ones who correctly interpret the Koran.

It’s amazing how many well educated peopel don’t get it. Indeed, it’s the educated people who seem to get it the least. This is a war to the death. It will go on until one side is dead.

Check out this gem:

“We have the right to kill four million Americans–two million of them children–and to xile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.”~ Suleiman Abu Gheith, Al Qaeda Spokeman, June 2002.

And polls show that most Muslims agree with him.

It’s time to stop kidding oursleves. We can’t stop the spread of nuclear weapons forever. Someday, they’re going to hit us much harder than on 9-11. The result will be a catastrophic response from this country, as even limp-wristed tofu eaters don’t like being nuked. It may also result in the end of America as we know it because of the legislative changes that could occur do to the massive public backlash.

Most Muslims are not terrorists nor do they favor terrorism. Christianity also went through some rather brutal phases but seems to have largely gotten past that. Perhaps the same will be true of Islam.

Making Islam the enemy is not a good idea, mainly because not all Muslims are “the enemy” and also on purely practical grounds.

You haven’t looked at polls taken from average Muslims in the mid-east. I’m not making them the enemy. Leave them alone as long as they do us. But we’re foolong ourselevs if we think their religion has nothing to do witht heir actions.

Not even you think that.

I was in basic training with an Afghan national who was serving in our army as a translator. he told me point blank, if he finds that his wife is cheating on him, he will kill her. The religion, if practiced as the Koran states, is incompatible with Western living.

Religion does influence the actions of some. However, it seems to often used to justify or excuse what a person would do anyway. I’m content to leave people alone who are willing to reciprocate. Likewise, I am willing to fight those who would rather fight.

I’m certain that the killing of cheating spouses is not limited to Muslims. That has been regarded as an offense warranting death by Christian folks.

The problem that I have with educated people is that they also tend to be the people who have much given to them by this country and don’t appreciate it. And the hatred of Christianity by many “educated” people is usually at the root of the hatred for America itself.

The other problem I have with educated people–no, intellectuals–is that they tend to think they can come up with complex political and moral systems in order to make humans happier. Of course I’m in favor of intelliegence. But see, here’s the difference between an intelligent man and an intellectual: My grandfather was an intelligent man. He was a welder by trade. He would try different ways to make better welds and ran a successful business. If something didn’t work, he tried something else.

But an intellectual sits in a room and figures things out first. When he finally gets around to doing soemthing with his schema, he does everything he possibly can to make reality fit his ideas, because he’s put so much time and effort into his thoughts. He’s savored every luscious moment of his fantasy and wallowed in his own private genius; he refuses to see when things aren’t working. So, it is reality–and thus people-who often suffer at the hands of intellectuals (Marx, Rosseau and so many like them) because they are forced to live under the conditions of a mythology cooked up in someone’s mind. And no mind, however great, can account for every nook or cranny that happiness may hide in. For the intellectual, his own thoughts are more valuable than humans.

And that’s why freedom and capitalism (the default economic setting of a free society) is the only way man can truly be happy and maximally productive. There is a great difference between the intellectual and the wise man.

That being said, the only difference between the Islamic extremist and the “mainstream” Muslim is not that the extremist is willing to kill for what he believes in. It’s that the extremist is willing to die for what he believes in.

How can you presume to think that all educated people hate Christianity? Furthermore, how can you presume to know what all intellectuals think? Even farther, capitalism almost ruined a global economic system. Without the intervention of the federal government, there would be economic chaos right now. Capitalism is not the default economic setting. That title would go to collectivism.

“To be fair, people claiming to be Christians do still use violence and justify it on the basis of their faith. Perhaps the best known examples are the murders of doctors who perform abortions.”

Ok. But it’s illegal in our country. Stoning 13 year old girls to death for kissing boys is legal in Iran.

Has anyone else noticed that many athiests and agnostics pick parts of the bible to use against Chistians, even when those parts seemingly contradict? For instance, a few posts ago Mike used Jesus’ turn the other cheek message to imply that Palin and other Christians weren’t being very good Christians since they believe in Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrant. Mike’s message is that Jesus’ statement is a commendable coda to live by.

But on the other hand, when they feel like ripping on Christianity in general, and not just its practitioners in particular, they’ll skip back to the Old Testament where God kills children and orders the Israelites to commit genocide.

It’s obvious to me that many problems that people have with Christianity do not stem simply from the fact that they don’t believe, but from a deeper issue concerning the very foundations of American history.

Regardless if someone believes Christianity to be true or not, it must be acknowledged that what we consider Christian nations are parsecs ahead of
the rest of the pack in everything from human rights to technology and standards of living.

Are we to believe what religion we choose has nothing to do with this? Look at Israel, engulfed by Arabia, which in turn is swamped by tyranny, poverty and war. Israel, with its average per-capita income doubling Russia’s, extremely low unemployment rate and very real international contributions to science, and in fact world security.

In regards to my tactic, it makes sense to quote the bible when criticizing people who claim to be Christians yet say things that directly contradict the teachings of Christ. Going back to the Old Testament also makes sense when being critical, at least in some cases. For example, if someone uses the Old Testament to attack something (such as same sex marriage), then it is acceptable to refer to this book when addressing his/her point.

Why are you so intent on promoting the superiority of Christianity? One need not to pick and choose what part of the bible to discredit. If God is infallible and His canon contains contradictions, then that is something you’ll have to work out yourself.

As for Israel, it is a country stolen from the Palestinians who are treated like trash legitimized by the United Kingdom and the U.N.

For the Jews the holocaust is sacred and anyone who denies it goes to jail.
My country as laws against defamation of our King, other countries have their own symbols that are considered off-limits.
—so Muslims have their Prophet(pbuh) who is off-limits—get over it.
There are other ways to critisize Islam without using the Prophet(pbuh)

—-and just because a particular religion has no respect for its own symbols, doesn’t mean everyone else has to abandon theirs.

“Certain persons have been begging me for the past five years to write about war against the Turks, and encourage our people and stir them up to it, and now that the Turk is actually approaching, my friends are compelling me to do this duty, especially since there are some stupid preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the people believe that we ought not and must not fight against the Turks. Some are even so crazy as to say that it is not proper for Christians to bear the temporal sword or to be rulers; also because our German people are such a wild and uncivilized folk that there are some who want the Turk to come and rule. All the blame for this wicked error among the people is laid on Luther and must be called “the fruit of my Gospel,” just as I must bear the blame for the rebellion, and for everything bad that happens anywhere in the world.” ~ Martin Luther; On War Against the Turks

ANN ALTHOUSE: Comedy Central cowers in the face of a murder threat/warning against “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Obviously, Christians — and Sarah Palin fans, and lovers of My Mother The Car — should take heed of this incentive system our modern media is creating. Don’t want things you treasure satirized? Just issue a “prediction” and — voila! Meanwhile, note how entirely real radical Muslim threats and violence are treated as just part of the weather — something you have to adapt to — while nonexistent Tea Party violence is an existential threat to the Republic.

But here’s a warning of my own: Those who have no backbone will do the bidding of those who do.

As a somewhat crazy idea, what if there was a day in which everyone was encouraged to put up an image of Mohammed on blogs, YouTube and so on? Imagine if thousands of people did this. Would everyone get a personal death threat?

On a more serious note, what might be in order is overcoming this hurdle against free expression. Obviously the media folks have no qualms about mockery and disrespect itself. Their professed concern is a safety matter (thus showing that they believe that followers of Islam include people who will kill over such a trivial offense). But, if folks are willing to take the risk on themselves, then this should not be an issue.

And look Mike, she’s using the same tactic you use: Using the Bible when it’s convenient: “Woeful disregard of the Second Commandment by so called Christians never ceases to amaze me.”

What exactly is your point? It’s not clear to me other than you want to be critical of Christians. That’s your defense of Islam? Are you really saying all religions are alike–that is, they all suck? Ok, but are we worried about Hindus? How about Wiccans? Been bombed by any Wiccans lately?

How about the treatment of women: Did you know that in the 2000s, Muslims were responsible for 85% of rapes in Denmark? Does that matter? Why do you find it neccessary to defend obvious evil?